A. Mission Statement

The mission of the administration, faculty, and staff of the College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics is:

to provide high quality instruction in science, mathematics, and education in science and mathematics, by faculty for whom excellent teaching is a high priority, and who produce ideas and innovations which continually improve teaching and learning;

to conduct original research that creates new knowledge, and to publish and present scholarly and creative works that advance the fields of science, mathematics, and education in science and mathematics;

to provide opportunities and support for faculty to conduct original research;

to provide opportunities for students to participate in research projects with faculty who consider continuing scholarly activity a responsibility both to their students and to their discipline;

to provide good learning environments and well-equipped laboratories, ready access to faculty and department advisors, and a schedule of classes designed to ensure a bachelor's degree in four years for entering qualified
students who take a full course load and maintain good academic standing;

to provide classes for the general education student and non-science major that offer the substance of science and mathematics in a manner which results in graduates who can understand and appreciate the linkage between science, mathematics, and the modern world;

to provide bachelor degree programs that result in graduates ready to pursue careers in their field, further graduate or professional studies, or enter the teaching profession;

to provide master's degree programs that prepare students for job advancement, entry into new job opportunities, pursuit of the Ph.D. degree, or teaching opportunities in schools and colleges;

to seek external funding from public and private sources in support of our mission, providing supplements to State of California financial support;

to provide an atmosphere and environment that encourages and supports collegial interaction among members of the campus community and that fosters learning, personal growth, and intellectual achievement.

2. College RTP Policies and Procedures: policies and procedures approved by the College faculty, College Faculty Council and College Dean for the College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, as specified in current documents.

3. Department RTP Policies and Procedures: policies and procedures approved by the Department, College Faculty Council, and College Dean, as specified in current documents.

4. Early Promotion/Early Tenure: The normal probationary period prior to tenure is six years of full-time probationary service and credited service, if any ( see current CBA). Early Promotion or Early Tenure refers to cases in which a faculty member seeks promotion to Associate Professor, or seeks Tenure prior to the normal probationary period, or promotion to Professor prior to the normal time for consideration.

5. Narrative: Written by the candidate, the Narrative is intended to serve as a concise, coherent guide to reviewers in understanding and highlighting the candidate's achievements in each of the three categories (teaching, creative/scholarly activity, and professional service), the nature of student involvement in the candidate's scholarly/creative activity, and in explaining how the candidate views her/his work in relation to the essential and enhancing criteria enunciated in the various applicable documents of the Department, College, and University. It is an opportunity to emphasize the candidate's continuing professional development that should be the central organizing element of the candidate's Narrative.

6. Open period: The "open period" is the period during which any "faculty, students, academic administrators, and the President may contribute information to the evaluation of a faculty unit employee... (including) statements and opinions ... by other persons identified by name" (from the current CBA ).

7. Pedagogy: the science and methods of teaching and learning

8. Period subject to RTP review: The period of review depends on the type of decision to be rendered. For retention or tenure decisions, the period includes the probationary period, plus any years of prior service credit. For promotion decisions, the period is from the last promotion.

9. Professional expertise: expertise related to or gained from the faculty member's knowledge within her/his field of instruction and research, or expertise gained from the faculty member's experience in governance of the University.

12. Standard RTP Evaluation Form: This is a standardized form that shall be provided by the College to the Department RTP Committees for each candidate to be reviewed. The College shall also provide a copy of this form to each candidate.

13. University Course Data (UCD): This refers to data maintained by the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) and/or the Department and includes data from University Student Evaluation Forms and course grades.

14. University Procedure for External Evaluators: This is the procedure for obtaining outside reviews of the candidate, as specified in the current University Policy Statement.

15. University RTP Policies and Procedures: policies and procedures contained in the current University Policy Statement and the CBA.

A. The Candidate

1. The candidate has the primary responsibility for collecting and presenting the evidence of her/his accomplishments in a Working RTP Personnel Action File to the Department Committee within the timeline established by campus policy. In preparing the evidence, the candidate should refer to the Department RTP document and consult the Department Chair and experienced colleagues for guidance. During the first semester of an incoming candidate at the College, the Chair of the Department takes the role of mentor as described in Section II.B.2. of this Document. The candidate is strongly encouraged to avail herself/himself of opportunities to acquire a mentor or mentors, from inside and/or outside the Department, and to participate in activities designed to provide mentor-like advice about the RTP process. The candidate is encouraged to seek out advice and help with respect to her/his teaching assignments, and, with the goal of constructive improvement, to arrange peer visits similar to those required for evaluation as described in Section II.A.l.c.v. of this Document. Other sources of counsel are available, such as that provided by the Center For Faculty Development.

2. The candidate should be aware that evaluation committees and administrators are responsible for identifying and providing some materials related to evaluation not provided by the candidate, and that these are described in the relevant RTP documents.

3. The candidate has the responsibility of choosing in which of the three main evaluation categories (teaching, creative/scholarly activity, and professional service) to place an item. An item usually shall not be considered in more than one category.

4. The submitted materials must include a Narrative, labeled as such, outlining the significance of the candidate's achievements in the three evaluation categories and a description of the candidate's approach to teaching. A file that does not include a Narrative shall be considered incomplete, and the candidate shall be notified by the Department RTP Committee and/or Office of the Dean. Following such notification, the candidate shall have seven calendar days to append a Narrative to her/his Working RTP Personnel Action File. If no Narrative is submitted by the candidate, the file will be officially designated as incomplete and evaluated "as is". The candidate should be aware that such an incomplete file opens the possibility that the various levels of review might inadvertently overlook or misunderstand areas of achievement which the candidate considers important.

5. On a specific date established by campus policy, the working Personnel Action File is declared complete with respect to documentation of performance for the purpose of evaluation. Insertion of material after the date of this declaration must have the approval of a peer review committee, either the Department RTP Committee, if they have not completed their recommendations, or the College RTP Committee for all other levels in the RTP process. The material added shall be limited to items that become accessible after the declaration that the file is complete. Material inserted in this fashion shall be returned to the initial evaluation committee for review, evaluation, and comment before consideration at subsequent levels of review. If, during the review process, the absence of required evaluation documents is discovered, the Working Personnel Action File shall be returned to the level at which the requisite documentation should have been provided. Such materials will be provided promptly, in a timely and expedited fashion.

6. The candidate shall have seven calendar days to include in the Working RTP Personnel Action File a separate written response/rebuttal to the evaluations and recommendations made at each level (the Department RTP Committee, the Department Chair, the College RTP Committee, and the Dean ). If the candidate's official response will cause a possible delay beyond the designated deadlines for transfer of the file by the Department or College to the next level, the file will be forwarded on time and the candidate's official response within the seven-day limit will be forwarded and automatically added to the file at the next level.

7. In cases of requests for early promotion and/or tenure, and in cases involving candidates who are tenured, by providing written notice to all levels of review, the candidate may withdraw from the RTP process at any time prior to a final decision of the President.

8. The candidate should be aware that the Department RTP document shall be used as the primary document for evaluation of the candidate by the Department RTP Committee and the Department Chair. However, any recommendations made by the Department RTP Committee and the Chair must be fully consistent with the provisions of the College and University RTP documents.

9. The candidate's Working RTP Personnel Action File shall include:

a. Copies of the letter of appointment of the candidate, as well as the applicable Department, College, and University RTP policies and procedures.

b. In promotion cases, for the period since the last promotion, and in tenure cases, all evaluations, recommendations, and decisions from all levels of review for all previous periodic evaluations and performance reviews. The candidate may include a statement that addresses specific comments noted in previous evaluations and reviews.

c. A current curriculum vitae. For retention, tenure, or promotion decisions, the curriculum vitae must clearly delineate materials chronologically. Materials relevant to the period subject to RTP review, including any years of prior service credit, shall be clearly designated as such. The curriculum vitae must show the years when all higher degrees were granted, the year of appointment (starting semester) to a tenure-track position at CSULB, the effective date of tenure at CSULB, if any, and the effective date of promotion at CSULB, if appropriate.

d. The candidate's written Narrative, clearly labeled as such. A brief description of this Narrative is in the Glossary above. It is further described and specified in the University Policy on RTP and in various sections of this Document.

e. Copies of all publications listed in the curriculum vitae, clearly delineating those that appear in media that require peer-review for publication and those that do not.

f. Copies of all working papers, manuscripts, and other unpublished scholarly papers listed in the curriculum vitae.

g. Written reports of classroom visits by Department peers, if the candidate has arranged for such visits. These are distinct from the required visits conducted as part of a formal evaluation by the Department RTP Committee, as described in this Document.

h. Copies of representative course syllabi, assignments, tests and other student assessment material, and other course material listed in the curriculum vitae. The candidate should not include duplicate material from many semesters.

i. Excepting Summer and Winter session courses, student evaluation forms for all of the candidate's courses that have been evaluated, or their equivalents as described in Section V.B. of this Document, must be easily available to the Department and College RTP Committees through the Department office. The candidate may address in the Narrative any issue that may have affected these results.

j. Distributions of student evaluation scores for all courses taught by the candidate during the period subject to the RTP review. For comparison, similar Department and College distributions will be supplied by the Office of Instructional Research, as described in Section V.B. of this Document. As noted there, the College will arrange to have this information supplied to the candidate by the Office of Institutional Research (OIR). The candidate will add this information to Working RTP Personnel Action File.

k. Grade distributions for all courses taught by the candidate during the period subject to the RTP review. For comparison, similar Department and College distributions will be supplied by the Office of Instructional Research, as described in Section V.B. of this Document. The College will arrange to have this information supplied to the Department by OIR. The Department RTP Committee will add this information to the Working RTP Personnel Action File.

l. Copies of any other evidence that the candidate wishes to be considered. For example, teaching assessment by students on a form designed by the candidate or Department. A brief description of how the data from such student assessments was collected, designed, and approved shall be included in the Department RTP Document and/or candidate's Working RTP Personnel Action File. If a candidate submits any of a course's original University Student Evaluation Forms, or student comments from those forms, all forms from that class must be submitted.

The Department is responsible for defining in writing its mission and goals as they relate to faculty contributions, so that candidates understand what is expected of them as members of that faculty. The Department RTP Document may amplify, specify, and otherwise establish standards consistent with those in this Document and the current University policies and procedures on RTP.

Because both Department and College RTP Committees need to review all evaluations of teaching effectiveness, and make a critical analysis of all student input, each Department shall develop mechanisms to insure that the original evaluation forms for each class can be received from the student administrator in a fashion that does not involve in any way the faculty member being evaluated. The forms must, from their initial reception by the Department. be maintained secure from alteration and submitted to the Office of Institutional Research in a timely manner.

1. The Department RTP Document

Within the Department RTP Document, the Department is responsible for defining in writing its mission and goals as they relate to faculty contributions, so that candidates understand what is expected of them as members of that faculty. The Department RTP Document may amplify, specify, and otherwise establish standards consistent with those in this Document and the current University policies and procedures on RTP. Department RTP Committees and Department Chairs shall use the College RTP Document as the governing document if no Department Document exists, or if any substantive conflicts develop when drafting or interpreting RTP documents. In accordance with the current University Policy on RTP, the Department faculty shall ratify the Department RTP Document and submit it for approval by the College Faculty Council, and College Dean. Revisions to a Department RTP Document shall require approval by the Department, College Faculty Council and College Dean.

The Department RTP document shall be used as the primary document for evaluation of the candidate by the Department RTP Committee and the Department Chair. However, the Department RTP Committee and the Chair must be fully aware of the provisions of the College and University RTP documents, and make recommendations consistent with the provisions of those documents.

2. The Department Chair

During each candidate's first semester on duty at CSULB, the role of mentor for an incoming candidate is taken by the Chair of the Department. The Department Chair shall meet with the candidate during the first semester to orient her/him concerning RTP procedures and expectations. The Department Chair shall provide all faculty, and newly hired faculty, upon appointment. copies of the RTP Policies and Procedures from all levels of review, the CBA, and the Standard RTP Evaluation Form provided by the College. The Chair shall also provide copies of any of official student evaluation forms, describe how they are administered and maintained in the Department, and explain their role and significance in the RTP process. At least once a year the Department Chair shall meet with each probationary faculty member and candidates for tenure or promotion to discuss the candidate's performance.

If a Chair is elected to serve on the Department's RTP Committee, and chooses to serve, the Chair shall not submit separate evaluations and recommendations to the Office of the Dean. If the Department Chair chooses to submit a separate recommendation, he/she may not be present at any formal meetings of the Department RTP Committee. When the Department Chair is also being considered for tenure or promotion, he/she shall not be involved in making recommendations.

If the Chair is not serving on the Department's RTP Committee, it is optional for the Department Chair to submit separate evaluations and recommendations. However, if the Chair writes an evaluation and recommendation for one candidate for retention, then the Chair must write an evaluation and recommendation for all candidates for retention. If the Chair writes an evaluation and recommendation for one candidate for tenure, then the Chair must write an evaluation and recommendation for all candidates for tenure. If the Chair writes an evaluation and recommendation for one candidate for promotion to a specific rank, then the Chair must write an evaluation and recommendation for all candidates for promotion to that rank.

3. The Department RTP Committee

Each department shall have an RTP Committee which shall be elected by majority vote of its tenure-track and tenured faculty who vote. Department RTP Committees should ordinarily be elected as early as feasible in the Fall semester of the academic year for which they will serve, or they may be elected in the Spring semester immediately preceding the Fall semester of the academic year for which they will serve. If a member of a Department RTP Committee becomes a member of the College RTP Committee, that member shall no longer serve on the Department Committee, and the Department shall elect a replacement as soon as possible.

a. Committee and Subcommittee Membership

Each Department shall have an RTP Committee of at least three members who are elected according to the procedures specified in each Department's RTP document, and who are full-time tenured faculty of theDepartment with the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. Faculty members may not serve on the RTP Committee if they are (I) candidates for tenure or promotion, (2) members of the College RTP Committee, (3) on full-time leave for either semester, or (4) participating in the FERP or PRTB programs. Members of the Department RTP Committee who participate in promotion decisions must have higher rank than the candidate. At least three members of the Department RTP Committee must participate in each decision. All recommendations for a given category (retention, promotion to a given rank, or tenure) shall be considered by the same Department RTP Committee or subcommittee. Members of Department RTP Committees shall normally be from that Department, unless the Department has insufficient numbers of faculty to meet the requirements given above. If insufficient numbers of eligible faculty are elected, the Department faculty shall nominate additional members from related disciplines, and the Department shall select sufficient numbers in accordance with Department policies for selecting the Department RTP Committee, as stated in the Department RTP documents. Election of members of the Department RTP Committee shall be by secret ballot.

b. Department RTP Committee Procedures

i. The Department RTP Committee shall have the initial responsibility for evaluating the quality of work in all three areas of evaluation (teaching, creative/scholarly activity, and professional service). The Department RTP document shall be used as the primary document for evaluation of the candidate by the Department RTP Committee. However, the Department RTP Committee must be fully aware of the provisions of the College and University RTP Documents, and make recommendations consistent with the provisions of these documents, as well as the Department RTP Document. The Department RTP Committee shall use the Standard RTP Evaluation and Recommendation Form provided by the College. If the candidate's contributions in a particular area are outside the expertise of the members of the Department RTP Committee, the Committee is encouraged to seek outside peer review and comments related to those contributions, consistent with the University Procedure for External Evaluation.

ii. The Department RTP Document shall specify a standard method for classroom visits for the purpose of peer evaluation of classroom teaching and constructive feedback to the candidate. The Department procedure must meet or exceed the requirements given in Section E.A.1.c.v of this Document. In the absence of a Department RTP document, the procedure in Section E.A.l.c.v. of this Document shall be followed. Written reports of classroom visits by Department RTP Committee members shall be placed in the candidate's file in a manner consistent with the provisions of the current CBA.

iii. The Department RTP Committee shall also solicit written comments by conspicuous announcements on the candidate's teaching performance from faculty colleagues not serving on the College or Department RTP Committees and from current and former students. Any such comments received must be signed and placed in the candidate's file during the open period, and copies shall be given to the candidate.

iv. The Department RTP Committee shall include grade distributions for the candidate in the candidate's Working RTP Personnel Action File. The source and extent of the information to be included is described in Section V.B. of this Document.

v. The Department Chair shall not be present at Department RTP Committee meetings if the Chair is not a member of that Committee.

vi. The Department RTP Committee must place the candidate in one of three categories with respect to each of the three major areas of evaluation: teaching effectiveness, scholarly/creative activities, and professional service. These categories are: "Excellent," "Competent," and "Deficient." If placed in other than the "Excellent" category in any evaluated area, a detailed justification must be given for that placement, as well as recommendations as to how the candidate may move to a higher rating within that area.

vii. The Department RTP Committee shall classify candidates for Retention, Promotion, or Tenure as "Recommended" or "Not Recommended". The Department RTP Committee shall forward to the College RTP Committee its recommendations and supporting materials within the timeline announced by the President or designee.

1. College RTP Committee

a. Committee Membership

The College RTP Committee shall consist of full-time faculty at the rank of Professor, one member from each Department in the College, elected by the full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty of the College. The election shall be by secret ballot from nominations made by the College Faculty Council, nominations made on the floor of a College Faculty meeting, and nominations in writing to the Chair of the Council by any faculty member of the College eligible to vote More candidates shall be nominated than there are vacancies. Vacancies shall be filed in the same manner as initial elections. The longest unexpired terms shall be filled by candidates receiving the highest number of votes. Faculty ineligible to serve on the College RTP Committee include the following categories: the Dean, Associate Deans, Department Chairs, members of Department RTP Committees, faculty on full time leave in any semester, faculty on PRTB or FERP.

i. The College RTP Committee may standardize Working RTP Personnel Action Files and specify the order in which items are collated, organized, and listed, including the order and division of information in the curriculum vitae.

ii. The College RTP Committee shall notify the College Faculty Council and the College Dean if it determines that a Department RTP Document requires revision to maintain consistency with this Document and the University Policy on RTP.

iii. In cases where the College RTP Committee wishes to consult regarding the contents of the Working RTP Personnel Action File and/or the interpretation of the contents by the Department RTP Committee or Chair, the College RTP Committee may formally confer with the Candidate and/or the Department RTP Committee (and the Department Chair, if the Chair has exercised the option to write a recommendation) prior to making a recommendation. The content and results of each of these conferences shall be summarized in a memorandum written by the College Committee, and a copy of the memorandum shall be sent to the candidate and to Ali parties involved in the discussion, and shall be included in the Working RTP Personnel Action File.

iv. The College RTP Committee must place the candidate in one of three categories with respect to each of the three major areas of evaluation: teaching effectiveness, scholarly/creative activities, and professional service. These categories are: "Excellent," "Competent," and "Deficient." If placed in other than the "Excellent" category in any evaluated area. a detailed justification must be given for that placement, as well as recommendations as to how the candidate may move to a higher rating within that area.

v. The College RTP Committee shall classify candidates for Retention, Promotion, or Tenure as "Recommended" or "Not Recommended". The College RTP Committee shall submit its recommendations concerning the candidates to the Dean within the timeline announced by the President or designee.

The Dean of the College acting for the University, College and Departments of the College. shall provide each tenure-track candidate, at the time of the initial appointment, copies of the Department, College, University and Trustee regulations and criteria for RTP, as well as any revisions thereto, as these shall pertain to the candidate.

The Dean, or the Dean s designee, will arrange with the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) to have the University Course Data (UCD) described in Section V.B. of this Document supplied to the appropriate parties named in that Section, for use in evaluations connected with RTP or Post-Tenure Review.

The Dean shall make a separate evaluation and recommendation for each RTP candidate. After the College RTP Committee has submitted its recommendations, the Dean may formally confer with the candidate or College RTP Committee prior to making a recommendation. The content and results of each of these conferences shall be summarized in a memorandum written by the Dean, and a copy of the memorandum shall be sent to the candidate and to all parties involved in the discussion, and shall be included in the Working RTP Personnel Action File.

1. The Office of Institutional Research
The Dean, or the Dean s designee, will arrange with the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) to have the University Course Data (UCD) described in Section V.B. of this Document supplied to the appropriate parties named in that Section, for use in evaluations connected with RTP or Post-Tenure Review.

2. Consultations
In order to examine and discuss the evidence in the RTP file and the reasons for the recommendation, the President or Vice President for Academic Affairs may formally confer with the Dean and/or the College RTP Committee prior to making a recommendation. The content and results of each of these conferences shall be summarized in a memorandum written by the President or Vice President for Academic Affairs, and a copy of the memorandum shall be sent to the candidate and to all parties involved in the discussion, and shall be included in the Working RTP Personnel Action File.

The criteria discussed in this Section may be satisfied differently, depending on the decision being made. Section IV. of this Document provides some guidance about the relationship of these criteria and attendant evaluation procedures to decisions about retention, early and regular tenure and promotion, joint appointments, and promotions
to different ranks.

Such activities include classroom, laboratory, and field teaching; supervision of student research; development of curricula; formally assigned student advising, and related activities involving students.

Teaching effectiveness is expected to improve and reach excellence in several areas as the candidate passes through the ranks. Evaluation of teaching shall be based on multiple inputs as described below.

i. Pedagogical approach and method. The scholarly rigor of the courses should be comparable to the same or comparable courses taught by other tenure-track faculty in the discipline. Course materials and teaching methods should reflect currency in the field, be appropriate to the topic, and be appropriately chosen, clear, and of value in facilitating learning. Course materials should clearly convey to the students the learning goals and the relationship of the course to the major and to the broader discipline. Materials should include at least course requirements, schedule, assignments, and grading policies. At minimum, each course taught by the candidate should prepare the students for later courses for which the course in question is a prerequisite. Course policies and grading practices should be clearly conveyed to students, and the results of grading practices should be reasonably consistent with Department and College norms for comparable courses.

ii. Student response to instructor. Student ratings of instruction should be compared with Department, College and University means and taken in context with all other criteria. These numerical ratings, and any other student input to the RTP Committee, should reflect a favorable student perception of the instructor's conveyance of knowledge, effort, availability, organization, and attention to student needs.

iii. Ongoing professional development as a teacher. There should be ongoing evidence that the candidate takes an active role in refreshing the courses, maintaining their currency, enhancing the teaching approaches used, and assessing her/his effectiveness in the classroom including responsiveness to student evaluations, all reflecting a thoughtful, deliberate effort toward continuous improvement in teaching effectiveness. This pattern of change over time should be described by the candidate in the Narrative, with supporting materials. This record may include interactions with colleagues on pedagogy, classroom visits, consultations on course improvement, involvement in programs of the Center for Faculty Development, participation in teaching seminars or conferences, giving or receiving pedagogical coaching, and other activities that contribute to professional development of teaching effectiveness.

iv. Ongoing professional development in the discipline. Candidates should present evidence that they have kept abreast of developments in the discipline and applied these in their instruction. Currency can be maintained through attendance and participation in discipline-specific conferences, reading of appropriate discipline journals and books, interactions with colleagues in the appropriate fields, and electronic or other communication with colleagues in related disciplines. The committee will assess student involvement in the candidate's scholarly and creative activities, supervision of student research, incorporation of the candidate's scholarly and creative activities into the classroom and course materials, and teaching methods.

Examples of completed products/activities that may satisfy essential criteria are given in Section III.A.l.c. below. The candidate is referred to her/his Department RTP Document for more specific essential criteria

Enhancing criteria may be specific to a candidate's department or discipline. The candidate is referred to her/his Department RTP Document for more specific enhancing criteria. Examples of completed products/activities that may satisfy enhancing criteria are given in Section III.A.1.c. below.

The College recognizes that there can be a wide variety of activities that fulfill, complement and complete the essential and enhancing criteria. The list below is meant to be illustrative and is neither ordered nor exhaustive of the possibilities that may be considered by the College RTP Committee in this category.

i. Innovative approaches to classroom or field teaching;

ii. Publication of textbooks, laboratory manuals, and study guides;

iii. Substantial participation in the supervision of student research, thesis research supervision, and the preparation of students for the presentation of such research;

Assessment of teaching effectiveness shall be based on peer evaluation of appropriate materials in the candidate's RTP Personnel File, and on student evaluation forms for all courses since the last promotion or since appointment. The emphasis of the evaluation of teaching should be on quality of teaching performance over time and in all the candidate s courses, rather than performance in only a few courses or a brief period.

i. The College RTP Committee should examine the candidate s Narrative for discussion of responses to suggestions for improvement from prior RTP reviews, favorable trends in teaching evaluations, mitigating circumstances that might explain unfavorable evaluations or student responses. and anything else that may assist the committee in evaluating the candidate s teaching effectiveness.

ii. The evaluation should critically assess grading standards as well as the scholarly rigor of courses taught; the frame of reference is to be the same or comparable courses taught by tenured/tenure-track faculty.

iii. The peer committee should carefully review all evaluations of teaching effectiveness, including a critical analysis of all student input. This analysis must assess the significance of the candidate's student evaluation data. To that end, each Department shall develop mechanisms, like those described in Section II.B. of this Document, to insure that this analysis, based on the integrity and completeness of all available student input, is possible.

iv. Emphasis in the peer evaluation of a candidate s course materials and content should be based on the quality of the materials and on their value in facilitating the learning process.

v. As part of the review process, a minimum of 4 class visits shall be made. At least two class visits to each candidate by each of at least two members of the Department RTP Committee must be conducted during the semester in which the review takes place (unless the candidate is not teaching at CSULB that semester; in which case, the most recent prior visitations shall be used). The candidate should be informed that the visits will occur during the review period, but the visits should be otherwise unannounced, except that the candidate may submit course syllabi, or otherwise notify the RTP Committee when tests or other activities are scheduled, to permit the Committee to choose most appropriate days for visits. The Committee members' evaluations of the candidate in the classroom should address such factors as clarity, style of communication with the students, student interaction with the candidate, presentation style, effective use of classroom time, content, effectiveness of course materials and, if used, audiovisual and electronic media. Written reports based on class visits shall be placed in the candidate s RTP file and shall include time(s) and date(s) of the visit(s), and the identity of the visitor(s).

vi. Supervision of students. As appropriate, peer evaluation should assess the mentoring activities of the candidate. This should include the evaluation of the conduct of courses, such as thesis supervision, for which conventional student evaluation data are not available.

vii. Formal student advising. The candidate should provide the RTP Committee with evidence of the effort put into the advising and the effectiveness of this advising in meeting student needs.

Faculty of the College are expected to remain engaged in an ongoing productive program of scholarly and creative activity that demonstrates intellectual and professional growth in their disciplines. All faculty are expected to produce scholarly and/or creative achievements which contribute to the advancement, application, or pedagogy of the disciplines, and which are disseminated to appropriate audiences. We expect candidates for promotion and tenure to have a record of scholarship that includes peer-reviewed publication. The record should provide clear evidence of the quality and value of scholarly activity, in which the candidate has a major responsibility, conducted to a substantial degree while a member of the faculty at CSULB. Examples of completed products/activities that may satisfy essential criteria for scholarly and creative activities are given in Section III.A.2.c. below. The candidate is referred to her/his Department RTP Document for more specific essential criteria used in evaluating scholarly and creative activity.

These activities should be disseminated to appropriate professional audiences, be appropriate to the mission of the College, and make significant contributions to the disciplines or to interdisciplinary studies. Peer reviewed works carry greater weight than those not subject to this type of evaluation. The College also recognizes the unique role of science and mathematics education within the College, noting that its mission is directly related to communication and learning of science at both precollege and college levels, and that, for example, the development of curricula and instructional technology for uses outside of a candidate s own personal teaching may be counted as a scholarly/creative activity. Examples of completed products/activities that may satisfy enhancing criteria for scholarly and creative activity are given in Section III.A.2.c. below The candidate is referred to her/his Department RTP Document for more specific enhancing criteria used in evaluating scholarly and creative activity.

The College recognizes that there can be a wide variety of activities that fulfill, complement and complete the essential and enhancing criteria. The list below is meant to be illustrative and is neither ordered nor exhaustive of the possibilities that may be considered by the College RTP Committee in this category.

i. Publication in refereed journals;

ii. Publication of a peer-reviewed book; chapter in a peer-reviewed book;

iii. Clear efforts to involve, and successful involvement of students in ongoing research;

iv. Co-author of publications and presentations with students;

v. Applications for external funds to support ongoing scholarly and creative work;

vi. Awards of peer-reviewed applications for external funding;

vii. Research instructionally related to the disciplines, the category of research specifically authorized for the CSU by California's Master Plan for Higher Education;

viii.Applied research or professional activity to address problems of importance to the disciplines and society;

ix. Awards of peer-reviewed internal grants;

x. Editorial/reviewer assignments with recognized professional publications calling for professional expertise;

xi. Citations of the candidate s work in other authors peer-reviewed works or in books.

xii. Membership on selection and review panels for grants, fellowships, awards, conference presentations, and other efforts calling for professional expertise;

xiii.Scholarly presentations at professional meetings and conferences.

xiv. Curricula and instructional technology developed for uses outside of a candidate s own personal teaching.

d. Evaluation For Scholarly and Creative Activities

The quality of faculty performance and the continuing productivity of the faculty member are the most important elements to consider, and are the primary criteria. The candidate bears the primary responsibility for explaining the significance of activities in this category, and reviewers will examine all materials submitted by the candidate. The candidate s documentation and its review will focus on continuing professional development, and this theme should be the central organizing element of the candidate s Narrative. The candidate is required in her/his Narrative to provide a presentation that puts her/his work in context. The Narrative is intended to serve as a coherent guide to reviewers in understanding the candidate s intellectual and professional achievements in this category, the nature of student involvement in the candidate s scholarly and creative activities, and how the candidate sees this work in relation to the essential and enhancing criteria enunciated in the various applicable documents of the Department, College, and University.

The candidate is urged to identify. within the materials submitted, examples of her/his best work along with an explanation of why these may be regarded as significant contributions. Reviewers will give particular consideration to the quality of these best examples. A candidate shall identify the specific extent of her/his participation in jointly authored activities. Each faculty member has different strengths, and successful candidates need not have achievements that are necessarily alike. Reviewers can, for example, take into account how a candidate s achievements benefit the College or University as a whole.

All supporting materials should be referenced and clearly explained. The documentation should include all works produced during the period subject to RTP review. As in all other categories, the College RTP Committee independently evaluates the materials related to scholarly and creative activities and forms an independent recommendation. External evaluations of the candidate s contributions to the discipline in this area can certainly be considered, consistent with the provisions of the current University Policy document on Retention, Tenure, and Promotion.

3. Professional Service
Professional Service includes service to the discipline, the Department, the College, the University, and the community. The candidate s Narrative should address the quality of the service, its contributions to the mission of the University, the College and the Department, and its relationship to the candidate's academic expertise.

a. Essential Criteria For Professional Service

Faculty must participate actively in faculty governance. Examples that may satisfy essential criteria for professional service are given in Section lII.A.3.c. below.

b. Enhancing Criteria For Professional Service

Faculty may enhance their service achievements with active involvement on committees at all levels of the College, the University and the University System. The quality of that service is the primary consideration. Service contributions based on consultancies must be clearly related to the University profession of the faculty member, and shall be evaluated on the basis of contributions to the mission of the University and to the candidate's Department. Examples that may satisfy enhancing criteria for professional service are given in Section III.A.3.c. below.

c. Examples of Products/Activities Related to Professional Service

The College recognizes that there can be a wide variety of activities that fulfill, complement and complete the essential and enhancing criteria. The list below is meant to be illustrative and is neither ordered nor exhaustive of the possibilities that may be considered by the College RTP Committee in this category.

i. Authorship of documents, reports and other material pertinent to the Department, the College, and/or the University;

ii. Sponsoring student groups;

iii. Actively participating in educational equity programs;

iv. Service to professional organizations;

v. Profession-related activities at local, state, national, and international levels through such discipline-oriented activities as committees, workshops, speeches, media interviews;

vi. Consultancies to schools, local governments and community service organizations;

d. Evaluation For Professional Service

i. The emphases in the evaluation of professional service shall be on: (I) the quality and significance of the activity, as measured by the degree to which the activity contributes to the missions of the University, the College and the Department; and (2) the extent and level of the candidate s involvement.

ii. Assessment of the service to both the University and community shall be based on information described in the Narrative, as well as on supporting evidence, which may include, but shall not be limited to, letters of invitation, memoranda acknowledging the quality of the contribution, printed programs, and other appropriate documentation.

In accordance with the CBA, tenured faculty are required to be evaluated at regular intervals. The faculty member to be evaluated shall prepare a brief file, including a Narrative, described below and in the Glossary of this document, to be submitted for review by the date designated by the College or University. The file shall contain:

a. A current curriculum vitae which includes, for the entire period since the last review, copies of applications for grants and awards, grants, awards, contracts, and publications and a summary of other professional activities, including a list of committee assignments and committee activities, and other briefly presented information that the faculty member believes is pertinent to the PTR process.

b. A Narrative, labeled as such, is required. The Narrative is intended to serve as a coherent guide for reviewers. It should contain a brief summary of developments since the last review in teaching, scholarly/creative activity, and professional service. Recognizing that, at various points in their careers, faculty members may choose to place special emphasis on particular aspects of their various professional activities, the Narrative should explain any such emphases and the progress made toward meeting the plans and goals discussed in the previous review. In addition, as part of the Narrative, there shall be a clearly marked statement or discussion of future intentions, plans, and goals for professional work in the coming five years.

c. Distributions of student evaluation scores and grade distribution for all courses taught by the candidate during the period subject to the review. The faculty member may address in the Narrative any issue that may have affected these results. These distributions, and for comparison, similar Department and College distributions will be supplied by the Office of Instructional Research, as described in Section V.B. and Section V.B. of this Document. These distributions are the same as those required of any RTP candidate, as described in Sections II.A.9.k. and II.A.9.l. of this Document. The College will arrange to have this information supplied to the candidate and the Department by the Office of Institutional Research (OIR).

d. Materials related to teaching, copies of publications, and other documents that are directly pertinent to the PTR process.

2. Criteria and Evaluation For Post-Tenure Review

The criteria for this evaluation shall be similar to those applied for promotion to the candidate's current rank, with special emphasis on the area(s) selected for such emphasis by the faculty member. The viewpoint and context of the evaluation shall be constructive, evaluating the quality and continuing productivity of faculty performance and pointing out areas in which improvement is needed. The evaluation may comment on the faculty member's plans and goals. The University and the College seeks to promote continued professional growth. Therefore the process of evaluation at all levels of review should take into consideration the pursuit of new interests and the acquisition of new skills by the faculty member.

3. Procedures For Post-Tenure Review

a. The Department RTP Committee, or a separate PTR Committee elected by the Department for this task, shall conduct Post-Tenure Reviews. The review shall take place in accordance with the timelines established in the CBA and/or relevant University Policy Statements. The Department RTP Committee shall review the list of scheduled Post-Tenure reviews during the first part of the Fall semester, and establish a timetable for review. A copy of the timetable will be given to the Department Chair. The Department Chair shall notify each faculty member to be reviewed in writing, and provide to each a copy of this Document and all other pertinent documents relating to post-tenure review.

b. If a tenured faculty member does not turn in a file, the appropriate Committee and Chair shall write memoranda to the Dean of the College stating that the faculty member has failed to comply with University policy and the provisions of this Document, and thus no formal PTR process can be implemented. The Dean shall meet with the faculty member scheduled for review to address the situation.

c. After the review at the Department level is completed, the Committee and the Chair shall write independent reports that shall be forwarded to the Dean of the College. The Dean shall meet with the faculty member under review to discuss the results of the Post-Tenure Review.

d. The following guidelines shall be followed in establishing a review schedule.

i. A tenured faculty member who is on sabbatical or difference-in-pay leave during the year when review is scheduled shall undergo review in the subsequent year.

ii. When a tenured Associate Professor submits a request for promotion, such a request replaces post-tenure review and resets the review clock.

iii. A tenured faculty member on extended leave of absence need not complete a review while on leave, but shall undergo review in the year the he/she rejoins the Department Faculty.

iv. A tenured faculty member who takes partial leave(s) of absence shall stay on the regular review cycle.

A. Retention is awarded to probationary faculty upon the completion of a performance review. The successful candidate will have performed satisfactorily in each area to be evaluated, although consideration will be given to the limited opportunities new appointees have for professional service. Probationary faculty should show evidence of a strong commitment to teaching and instructionally related activities and to a program of scholarly and creative activities. Probationary faculty should present evidence that they have begun work towards fulfilling essential criteria in all three areas of evaluation. Subsequent retention decisions will be contingent on progress presented and demonstrated in all three areas: instruction and instructionally related activities, scholarly and creative activities and professional service.

B. Tenure is awarded to probationary faculty who have met the essential criteria in instruction and instructionally related activities. scholarly and creative activities and professional service. Teaching effectiveness must show compelling evidence of potential for excellence. In addition. candidates shall have demonstrated fulfillment of several of the 'enhancing criteria' as described in Section m A. Tenure represents the University's long-term commitment to a faculty member and is only granted when there is strong evidence that the individual has the potential to continue to make increasingly distinguished contributions to the University and its instructional program, as well as to the academic community.

C. Early Tenure and/or Promotion are granted only in exceptional circumstances and for compelling reasons. To receive a favorable recommendation for early tenure or early promotion, a candidate must already have achieved a record of accomplishment which meets the essential criteria at a superior level in all three areas of review at a time earlier than usually scheduled. In addition, the candidate must present a record of significant enhancing achievements. The length of the candidate's record must be sufficient to provide confidence that the pattern of achievement will continue.

D. Assistant Professor: The appointee ordinarily shall hold the doctorate or recognized terminal degree in the field of specialization. The appointee should show potential for effective teaching, scholarly/creative activity, and professional service, as defined in Section m of this Document. and consistent with the mission of the Department, College and University.

E. Associate Professor: In addition to having the qualifications of an Assistant Professor, the candidate ordinarily shall have had successful experience in teaching and scholarly/creative activities. Teaching effectiveness must show compelling evidence of potential for excellence. Meeting essential criteria is necessary, though not sufficient, for promotion or appointment to the rank of Associate Professor. In addition to meeting the essential criteria, there should be evidence of progressive professional development in the areas of instruction and instructionally related activities, scholarly/creative activities, and professional service, and demonstrated fulfillment of some of the "enhancing elements", as described in Section III of this Document.

F. Professor: In addition to having the qualifications of an Associate Professor, there shall be substantiation of continued effectiveness and professional growth in instruction and instructionally related activities and evidence of relevant and effective professional service. In some teaching activities, the candidate's teaching effectiveness must have realized the potential for excellence evidenced in previous promotion and/or tenure awards. The candidate ordinarily shall have established a record of sustained and continuing scholarly or creative activity, reflecting intellectual and professional growth and demonstrating fulfillment of several of the "enhancing elements", as described in Section III of this Document.

G. Joint Appointments: All information in this document applies to faculty appointed jointly to two or more departments. However, it is particularly important for the involved departments to maintain a clear set of requirements for tenure and advancement as applied to the joint appointee. These requirements must be worked out through a process of consultation and collaboration with the departments and the candidate, with the approval of the Dean or Deans.

At all levels of the RTP process in which recommendations are made, including the Chair's recommendation, if any, the candidate shall be given full copies of all RTP recommendations, including the reasons for the recommendations. All recommendations at all levels must be made within the timelines designated by campus policy. A candidate may respond in writing no later than seven calendar days following receipt by the candidate of the recommendations. A copy of this response must be placed in the candidate's RTP folder, and a copy shall be sent to all previous levels of the process. If the candidate's official response will cause a possible delay beyond the designated deadlines for transfer of the file by the Department or College to the next level, the file will be forwarded on time and the candidate's official response within the seven-day limit will be forwarded and automatically added to the file at the next level.

2. If and when consistent with University, College, and Academic Senate policy, the following procedures regarding students comments shall obtain. Either the original student evaluation forms or photocopies of all student comments from the backs of the student evaluation forms for all courses taught by Department faculty, must be easily available to the Department and College RTP Committees through the Department office for use in evaluating candidates in the RTP process or in the process of Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty. See Section II.B. for the Department's responsibility to develop mechanisms to secure the integrity of student evaluation data. As soon as consistent with University policy, the Department shall store the original forms in the Department in a secure fashion, and the faculty member shall receive photocopies of ail written student comments for courses taught by the faculty member. Until that procedure is consistent with University policy, photocopies shall be taken of all student comments on the student evaluation forms for courses taught by the faculty member. The photocopies shall be packaged and labeled with course, semester, year, and the instructor's name, and kept in a file. If the faculty member wishes, he/she can peruse his/her own forms or copies in the Department office. After 10 years, the photocopies or the original forms, whichever is stored, may be given to the faculty member.

3. After analysis of the statistical data, when the Department receives the raw forms and summary sheets from the Office of Institutional Research, the Department shall provide the faculty member a copy of the summary sheets. The College will arrange with the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) to have appropriate information, as described below, supplied to the candidate and/or the Department, about courses taught by ail faculty involved in the RTP process or in the process of Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty. The information shall include at least the following:

a. Distributions of student evaluation scores for all courses taught by the candidate for the period subject to the RTP review or Post-Tenure Review. Distributions for the Department and College for comparison to the candidate's distributions will also be supplied. The candidate and the Department shall receive this information from the OIR based on arrangements made by the College with the OIR. These distributions shall be compiled chronologically by course level. The distributions shall include significance levels of appropriate statistical comparisons of the candidate's means for each question with College and Department means for courses at the same level (general education, lower division, upper division, graduate). Specific statistical comparisons to be included shall be decided by consultation between the College and the OIR.

b. Grade distributions scores for all courses taught by the candidate for the period subject to the RTP review or Post-Tenure Review. Distributions for the Department and College for comparison to the candidate's distributions will also be supplied. The Department RTP Committee will add this information, which will be supplied to the Department by the OIR based on arrangements made by the College with the OIR. These distributions shall be compiled chronologically by course level. The distributions shall include significance levels of appropriate statistical comparisons of the candidate's means with College and Department means for courses at the same level (general education, lower division, upper division, graduate). Specific statistical comparisons to be included shall be decided by consultation between the College and the OIR.

V.C. All questions of interpretation of this Document shall be referred to the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, Academic Personnel, who in turn may consult the Faculty Personnel Policies Council before making a decision. Decisions may be appealed to the Academic Senate, and its recommendations will be forwarded to the President of the University. [top]

V.D. Once the RTP process has begun, the candidate's RTP file shall remain in the custody of the responsible party at each level of review, while remaining accessible for review. [top]

VI.A. The College Faculty Council shall have the power to propose amendments to this document. Amendments may also be proposed by a petition of 10% of the full-time tenure-track faculty or by the College RTP Committee. Proposed amendments must be presented to the Chair of the College Faculty Council.

VI.B. All proposed amendments shall be distributed in writing to the College faculty at least one week prior to the faculty meeting called for discussion of the amendments. Following such discussion, all amendments will be voted on by secret mail ballot of the faculty.

VI.C. An amendment to this document shall become effective when it
1. has received a favorable vote of the majority of the votes cast by the faculty by secret mail ballot,
2. is found to conform to the University policy and the CBA, and
3. is approved by the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, Academic Personnel.

D. Any additional criteria added to this document by the process of amendment will become effective one year after the amendment is adopted.

College RTP Document approved by CNSM faculty May 1997. Approved by Academic Affairs July 1997.